SCOTUS overturns CA9 on Warrantless CPS interrogations

This is the 9th circuit case in which the circuit court found a Fourth Amendment violation based on a CPS worker and Sheriff's deputy's warrantless interrogation of a then 9-year-old at school. The 9th Circuit, though finding the violation, found that the official had qualified immunity since the law was unclear before. The deputy was granted cert in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled it could review the appellate court's constitutional decision, even though Camreta was the prevailing party below, based on qualified immunity. Nevertheless, the Court held the case is moot, because Greene has no continuing stake in the controversy. Consequently, it vacated the portion of the 9th Circuit opinion that imposed the warrant requirement.

Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion in which Roberts, Scalia, Ginsberg and Alito joined. Scalia wrote a concurring opinion. Sotomayor, joined by Breyer wrote an opinion concurring in the result, but opining that the court should have decided only that the case was moot and vacated the judgment below. Kennedy, joined by Thomas, wrote a dissent concluding that Camreta as a "prevailing party" should not have been permitted to appeal the constitutional decision below, which he describes as "obiter dictum".

Thanks to the NACCyahoo group for notice of and the link to the decision and to members of the group for the concise summary quoted above.

Advisory

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
Nothing on this website is an attempt to solicit or advise organizations or individuals seeking legal advice. This website is not advertising.
An attorney-client relationship is not created as a result of posting on this website nor from sending email to The Law Office of Michael L. Rich.
Emails or faxes transmitted to us are private only to the extent that any other unencrypted transmission over the internet is private. If you have concerns regarding this type of communication, please contact us via telephone or mail.

Advertising

In accordance with rules established by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. This web site must be labeled "advertising." It is designed to provide general information for clients and friends of the firm and should not be construed as legal advice, or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice. Neither accessing this site nor corresponding with the firm through the links available on this site will itself result in the formation of a lawyer / client relationship.